Thanks for the reply, but I’m not convinced. You cite a lot of issues - climate change, reproductive freedom, democracy- and acknowledge their importance. But then you say they don’t matter if the world gets destroyed by WWIII. Sure, that’s true. But it’s also highly unlikely. Putin’s not an idiot. He knows escalating to full blown war with NATO would be suicide, and he’s not suicidal.

His position is increasingly tenuous, even if he negotiated a peace that included territorial gains, NATO and the EU would still be getting bigger, isolating him further and only making him (1) more paranoid about the West and (2) more emboldened (given his success in Ukraine) to try his luck elsewhere.

A victory for Putin would also embolden Xi Jinping to attack Taiwan, which would certainly require an American response, regardless of who is president. It would also embolden Israel’s enemies, since a stronger Putin will have more resources to support Iran and Syria. Again, if they draw Israel into a larger regional war, the chances that the US will support Israel and even dedicate our own forces to their efforts are almost certainly greater under Trump. Both parties have supported Israel, but at least the Democrats have shown some willingness to make demands of Israel in exchange for further support. Trump would write them a blank check.

All of these are reasons enough to think Harris is the safer choice for avoiding the further spread and escalation of armed conflict. But I’ll give you one more. Trump’s record is clear. He makes decisions for his benefit and his alone. He won’t hesitate to retreat to his bunker and sell us all out just like he did in January 6. He’s egotistical and from his recent speeches it’s clear he’s increasingly suffering mental decline. He can’t be trusted to rationally evaluate complex situations or to take anyone’s interest into account other than his own.

If you want to roll the dice with him, that’s your prerogative. But it’s way too reckless a bet for me.